"In other words, complete whackos who spout lies and fabrications about the science are given equal (or more) air time than the bona fide climate scientists who can actually back up what they claim with peer-reviewed papers."

However, you have to realize that as far as gross evolutionary pressure is concerned; there is none anymore on the human race.

For example, in the old days, when we lived in the forests, there was enormous selection and pressures placed on us to develop a large brain, to understand how to use tools, to run, to be able to navigate, to survive in the forests. Enormous pressures on us because if you were not fit to live in the forest, you died.

The data , is rife with errors from adjustments, deletion of outliers not conducive to the narrative, infills in areas beyond coverage, incorrectly positioned stations, twisted interpretations of proxies , etc. Etc. You Norton apparently cant read, wont read, or have no comprehension of what you read. Which is it Norton? Don't project your own character on others . Quit lying about the flexability of your mind. I don't and never will dance to your tune .

and once AGAIN, Rick Sumner resorts to personal insults

because what else can he do?

bottom line: He absolutely cannot point out ANY ERRORS in the "data"

yet continues to insist there are errors, somewhere, but does know where

weak, so very very weak.....Rick....bottom line is that you are a LIAR because you LIED

shame on you, you are suffering the consequences of being a childish LIAR

Norton I gather you are retired military or proudly seved at least. Once again, I posted reference to three papers from actual independent scientists pointing out errors in the collection, manipulation , and/or misuse of of data to bolster a narrative by IPCC of doom, sometimes by scientifically impossible processes. The Chief has patiently posted graph after graph and reference to papers likewise pointing out the Impossibility of CAGW, for years now. Have you not listened to Spencer, Lindzen, Christy, Pielke, Curry, Happer, Dyson, Salby and many , many other of the most learned people in the world on this subject? They all point out the errors and misuse of data. Their papers, presentations and articles have been posted again and again.. Back to your service of country, I assume you served honorably and at one time honored the blood and toil of generations before in establishing this great country that has accomplished more and was responsible for more personal freedoms than any nation before. You are an american, for you to now to cast yout lot with these globalist criminals and idiots that ridicule and seek to tear down the country of your birth is beyond comprehension.

The data , is rife with errors from adjustments, deletion of outliers not conducive to the narrative, infills in areas beyond coverage, incorrectly positioned stations, twisted interpretations of proxies , etc.

So it should be quite easy for you to show them, specific ones. Demonstrate one, any one, of these "errors from adjustments". You make this claim, and when asked to show them...any of them...you fail to do so, and simply repeat your prior claim.

The absolutely hilarious part is "twisted interpretations" and "incorrectly positioned stations" thus setting yourself up for an endless parade of "no not over there"...well where should we put it Rick? "F*#k if I know, but not anywhere it is now, or anywhere you ever propose for it to be, because then I couldn't continue to claim it's not in the right spot"

Comedy gold man, absolute gold. I think it's time to put down the hammer and walk away from the siding gig, Hollywood pays top cash for that kind of assclownery.

NN's senior media correspondent says journalists should not give air time to people who question the theory of global warming, arguing the evidence for climate change is conclusive and no longer open for debate.

"Let's begin with an important journalistic statement," Brian Stelter said Sunday on CNN's "Reliable Sources." "Some stories don't have two sides. Some stories are simply true. There's no necessity to give equal time to the 'other side.' One of these is climate change."

To me, this states that any air time given to the denier crowd is too much time.

I'd say this supports my claim nicely, while you say it does not. Please, tell me how it does not support my claim:

"In other words, complete whackos who spout lies and fabrications about the science are given equal (or more) air time than the bona fide climate scientists who can actually back up what they claim with peer-reviewed papers."

Sketch, now do some research for me. Find a non-right wing media outlet that denies AWG.

Surely this should be easy to do, since you are so set on proving me wrong.

"You give me flack for not knowing about Media Matters' story was about more than Sunday morning shows, even though I covered the evening news."

Whoa, you covered the evening news. Smart boy, no doubt.

But I, with a simple Google search, can find pages upon pages of links supporting my claim. And from all manner of news sources (well, except conservative news sources).

Look, here's another quote:

Our research revealed that coverage in the New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times and Wall Street Journal over this period significantly diverged from widespread agreement by many climate science communities that humans play a part in climate change. We attributed this mismatch in part to a misapplication of the journalistic norm of “balanced reporting.” The findings we described in the piece gained traction in science, policy, media and the public.

See, I highlighted the part that supports my claim.

Took me about 30 seconds to find half-a dozen more articles that back me up.

Boy, will you look like a foolish fish out of water if you can't find even one news story that goes against my claim. You know, the thing where you said, "You're whining about something you just made up."

Look on the last page at Sketch's post ( easy to read graphic from Legates 2013 courtesy of C. Monckton) of the bright red circle with 99.5% non consensus you ignorant hillbilly Capntheazzhole. There you will see the good humored righting of data falsely presented by Cook et al. Ditto Bruce Gay.

Look on the last page at Sketch's post ( easy to read graphic from Legates 2013 courtesy of C. Monckton) of the bright red circle with 99.5% non consensus you ignorant hillbilly Capntheazzhole. There you will see the good humored righting of data falsely presented by Cook et al. Ditto Bruce Gay.

Pay attention, dumbass!

Again, old news. Kind drops a big old turd on your stupid claim.

Good move getting Chef to write your posts, he is the expert Scatologist in the house.

As usual information about honorable people filters through the Bruce's twisted brain and emerges as lies out of his fingers to electronically smear. Where are the communities he left hanging in ruination, where are the testimonials from disgruntled local politicians and labor unions, or charges from environment Canada? Where are his substantiated misdeeds, other than outgrowing the radical environmentalism of youth upon realization it was being coopted for use by international criminal organizations to the detriment of all but the privileged few?